tv [untitled] November 9, 2010 5:30am-6:00am PST
this allowed it to move forward, so we are all working together now, and i have been really impressed with all of the measures that the puc has undertaken, mr. harrington, and they engaged all the stakeholders and got a lot of input. we applaud them for that. and we hope that you will move it forward. thank you very much. supervisor chiu: chair maxwell, can i ask a question? from palo alto. what is going on in the surrounding counties? >> one area already committed them 25 million gallons per day of conservation, and then through a program, they were encouraged to do another 10, so
they have created a conservation and recycling implementation plan, and all the agencies seem to be taking it fairly seriously. the urban water management plans are going to get started, too, and they are going to incorporate a 20% reduction by 2020, so there is going to be a lot of effort going into that. i am not on the council anymore. i do still lobbied them though. we directed staff best years to reduce the water use by 20% by 2020, and i was action disappointed in that staff looked at a 10-year period, 2004, to use as a base line, and, presto, we have already met the 20%, so i could only get a few votes to go further, but we are still pressing them. historically, wrote there were 100,000 salmon spawning in the river. last year, there were only 280,
so we are really on the brink, and that is why it is important to conserve. supervisor maxwell: thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, alex. i chair the citizens revisory committee. we supported this. -- citizens advisory committee korea -- committee. we reviewed this proposed legislation twice and made some suggested amendments based on certain members. we have gone through some deliberations. i and that some of the concerns of folks who really look up for small homeowners, people with small plots of land, we did try to address these things, so as we move forward, we hope that you approve this. supervisor maxwell: all right, any further public comment on
this item? seeing none, then public comment is closed. if you would like to speak, you do not have to have a card. you can just come right on up. madam, would you like to speak on this item? ok. is there anybody else? all right, seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, without objection? supervisor chiu: can i a note do it also approved supervisor maxwell: -- . will also? -- supervisor chiu: can i do it also? supervisor maxwell: madam clerk, could you read the next two items, please? clerk somera: this is a
resolution adopting findings and the california environmental quality act, including the adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and item four, a resolution adopting findings under the california environmental quality act, including the adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. >> i guess they are not here for my presentation. i am very pleased to be here today with two more of a regional projects moving forward to construction, and, specifically, we are here to us that you adopt the ceqa findings for the pipeline number two replacement project. the eir for the project was certified by the planning department on september 30, and
our commission approved the project and adopted the ceqa findings shortly thereafter, on october 15. supervisor maxwell: could you explain what that stands for? >> water system improvement program. that is the large retrofit of the hetch hetchy, a total cost of $4.60 billion. and there was a well-preserved. -- and there was a resolution. this showed you some of a larger improvement projects on the peninsula. the alignment of the crystal springs pipeline number to the rear project is the one
highlighted in blue here on the back. it spans 19 miles between the crystal springs area in the inc. sandra taylor county all of the way to the reservoir in the city. this is a pipeline that was built between 1903-1937. this is also important to our retail customers in the city. what this project will do is rehabilitate approximately 5 miles at 19 different work sites, and shown here, highlighted in the red circles, are somewhere the work will take place. supervisor maxwell: so isn't duplicating? how can they do that work and not interrupt service? >> because the work will be conducted in a smaller area, we will be able to run the water around the work site. a very good question.
we actually had to coordinate all of our work with 10 different jurisdictions. it require a lot of memorandum of understanding, and we will maintain full service while customers do the work. with the san andreas fault running along the peninsula, the overall purpose of this project is to increase the seismic reliability of our overall system in the peninsula. the improvements that will be completed, it will extend the life of the existing line, and they will also allow us to continue service following a major earthquake the project will also provide us with additional flexibility in terms of operation and maintenance in the peninsula region. so the major elements includes 1.7 miles of pipeline, and this will take place mostly in one town, south san francisco, and san mateo county.
we will also do because help line -- " we will also do what we call "slip linging," -- lining," and this will be concerning a major thoroughfare in the peninsula. there are two bridges across the san mateo creek, and there is also miscellaneous work, but the painting of exposed pipes and during the system to prevent corrosion. supervisor maxwell: so the slip line, you have a pipe that is what diameter? >> i think it varies from 54 inches to over 70 inches. we wanted to make sure that we could maintain adequate
capacity, and in this case, we are. supervisor maxwell: and the slip lining will -- >> we will dig them up and install new lines. supervisor maxwell: with these, you should be able to go -- >> what you are doing is coming up with a brand new condit, which will be able to withstand the shaking of a major seismic event -- a brand new conduit. >> and, obviously, it must be all straight lines. >> and you can insert bends, but the idea is that you only need to do a replacement as opposed to tearing other things up. it is steel pipe. i do not know exactly. do not quote me on that.
that would be my guess. supervisor maxwell: ok. >> so if you approve this item today, this shares to the implementation time line for the remainder of the project. we have already advertise the contracts. bids are due december 1, and if all goes according to plan, we will begin construction in february 2011, a total duration of the construction work just under two years. and finally, i wanted to me with an update about where we stand budget wise, both of the project and other level, and this shows that we're on track to deliver the project on budget if we do not have any variance at this point, and a programmable, we are now predicting a cost savings around $63 million. supervisor maxwell: cost savings
coming from -- >> well, we already have a budget approved for the overall program, and right now, we are forecasting savings in the order of $63 million, which means we would have to sell less revenue bonds, which will benefit everyone, and which, in turn, will lower the rate increases that will be required in the long term to pay back. supervisor maxwell: and where does this savings come from? >> very low bids, a very low bidding environment -- a very competitive bidding environment. for the last two or three years, everything has been lower, very aggressive bidding korea in hopes that we are pretty much the only show in california right now -- aggressive bidding. it helps that we are pretty much the only show in california right now. supervisor maxwell: thank you. we will open for public comment at this time.
i only have one card at the moment, francisco. >> supervisors, you know i also attend the san francisco public utilities commission meetings, wrote and i was waiting to hear about a section of the area that were shown on the note where there is going to be tunneling, and this is something new. there is also how it impacts the economy of this area. you do not ask any questions
about the, you know? as far as i know, $4.20 billion expended toward this project, she mentioned $4.60 billion. that is a lot of money. in the $2.40 billion is our money, san francisco. you do not ask any questions. it is billions of dollars but are expended for this project, and we have had this conversation before. how many jobs are given to us? no, this may not be the real topic of jobs, but it is linked to the project. no, when the board of
supervisors said they were not going to give all of the money, they were going to wait for the ceqzm -- ceqa, ceqa looks at a lot of things. the reason we have that is that we do not look at one or two things. so i do not have to teach you all, you know, but that should not be given just as a general manner, and none of you as the questions that are pertinent. no, it is true we got low bids, but with low bids come inferior jobs may bema it -- ybe, -- maybe, but if our portion of
this is $2.40 billion, how many good jobs are given to san franciscans? thank you very much. supervisor maxwell: any further comments on this item? seeing none, the public, and -- ok. walter? >> on the crystal springs pipeline. ♪ on the crystal springs pipeline i hope you fix that -- that line you are going to make it shine you just keep on working on that item and make it really fine da da da da, item four and it is time you tell me all
that you find on item four, that damn pipeline, and made it really fine -- and make it really fine you keep pushing it away it is time ♪ supervisor maxwell: anybody else? you do not have to sing. seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] colleagues, on item. four, without objection? so moved. madam clerk, could you read item 5? clerk somera: item number five, a resolution urging the department of building inspection to digitally much of
the status and condition of the historic sacred art church -- monitor the status in condition. -- and condition. supervisor maxwell: we are joined by supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: there is a substitute resolution, talking about the historic register, more accurately describing the historic resources that were removed. there is a request that the department of building inspection and the city attorney and dbi fully investigate the violation of the building code and bring enforcement action as well as a public report on the outcome. finally, the substitute alter some verve tents and other errors. the reason we're here is for the
particular and historical framework. one, sacred heart church has stood for nearly 114 years. it is a landmark silhouette on the city landscape. it is beautiful where it stands. the sacred heart church was built by the irish and became the largest irish parish west of secaucas, subsequently serving all image chris, including the italians, latinos, african- americans, and filipino americans during hard times -- subsequently serving all immigrants. there is some families.
it is also home to a gospel choir. sacred heart church stood after the loma prieta earthquakes, providing food and shelter to the victims, highlighting her tradition in social services. also the 1989 earthquake. the services that sacred heart gained, a strong recognition during the 1960's and 1970's, it was also home to the black panther breakfast program for children. when i came into office in 2005, the church had been sold by the archdiocese's 28 the ramp -- sold by the archdiocese to a philanthropist. there is strong sentiment in the
community, and they wanted to continue the relationship with the church. there are many people in the community that have a long time generational rapport and are very sad to see that the church was to be sold, and then to be converted into a non church space. many of those people had asked for their to the intervention to prevent demolition or it means to preserve it. that was a conversation i had with mr. furth back in 2005. there were expectations from two dozen 5 that there would be -- there were expectations from 2005 that there would not be any demolition of the church
whatsoever and that there would be a collaborative spirit, which, for while, it looked like it was occurring. however, that seemed to turn a corner for the worse. what we have learned is that there was with up a proper permit being obtain, in essence, in the middle of night, the best parts of the church, the stained glass windows, the marble, can we see it, please? this is what had always been there it. i do not know if you can see it very well. go ahead. and then you can show what happened after --
supervisor maxwell: i am sorry, but we will have to ask you to please find a seat. if not, you up to go into the chamber, because everybody has to have a seat. some of you might be here for the 2:00. it looks like it will be more like 2:30. if you're here for the 2:00 hearing, it is going to be later. thank you. >> how do you want to try again? -- and do you want to try again? we are looking at the altar. i do not know if you can get better light on it.
some of the best features of this church were removed without proper permits. this is certainly not against the law in terms of the church itself wanting to remove -- thank you very much. some of the most for a billion -- most resilience features. and i think those that own the church feel that they can stand above even our own building code was, that they would go ahead and remove those particular features that i think are extremely important to us and to the community. the church has been a magnet for significant light. -- blight. neighbors are stepping up to the
plate to try to be the antidote to the blight. those are the same neighbors that thought all along that there was going to be more of a community partnership between the academy, the church, and the community itself. but that did not happen. on may 26, the prisoner fines the window removed and open to the elements so that the church was in a compromise. on may 28, a dispatch my aid to make calls regarding the matter. on june 1, let aid was contacted by constituents that live in the area that all of the windows were removed on june 1. another call on june 2, i sent
my eighth back to inspect the site and spoke to workers that were on site. they came to the site, a complaint had been filed, and then issue of notice of violation had been provided. the issues a work order. on july 2, we were concerned how the building was left vulnerable. and to people that did not belong at that building. the fire department reports back that it was broken into, the gate standing open. and the department had to secure. my office informs the planning department of the status of the building. so we are concerned that this is a building that was much loved,
standing well over a century that i think should be landmarked but never was. it is certainly eligible. declared by our own department that this is a building of historical significance. nothing is stopping the church at all from eviscerating this building. it is part of the natural tension that is beginning to crop up because there are economic concerns of the church themselves and their relationship they have established over so many decades to be changing over night. the purpose of this resolution is to give voice to a community here. we are here to listen to the planning department and the department of building inspection who can help provide a little more insight as to why this is somewhat of an unusual situation, but one that needs
some definition going forward here. >> as supervisor mirkarimi mentioned, it came to our attention that there was some work going on without benefit of a permit. it removing some of the interior features of this building. the building was constructed between 1896 and 1907, it was designed by thomas welch. when those were installed in the 1909, -- to the windows were installed in 1909. they were shortly thereafter put into the building. the department issued a violation for removal of features without benefit of permit and for not going to the ceqa, the california
environmental quality act process. it would have to be followed regardless of what is going on. ceqa needs to happen first. in 1993, the advisory board had recommended approval of the landmark designation of this church. there is a designation report that was done at that time, and for some reason, that designation did not go through to the board of supervisors. it had been on the radar as being eligible has an individual landmark. we had been working with dbi to make sure that there was no other work going on without them coming to us first. we also contacted the academy to try to set up some meetings that we can try to resolve this issue. i do not know if